Good onya Viv

At present, relative to food production, there is now the grossest exploitation of the non-humans by the methods of industrialization. It is the same with the land, which is being destroyed by the mono-culture of industrialized farming.

The "farming" of animals as food is a major contributor to global warming - from the transmission of methane gas into the atmosphere (a natural by-product of the "farmed" animals themselves) and otherwise through the use of fossil fuels in the industrialized production of animals as food.

Dependency on animal protein as food is also now beginning to be acknowledged as having a seriously negative effect on health.

Thus the human world is now being overwhelmed by its own waste and by the toxicity of what it is ingesting at every level, industrial to personal. That toxicity is at the root of the current world-situation - toxic energy sources and toxic food-sources.

Altogether, there are two now-global forms of dependency that must be gone beyond: dependency on fossil fuels and dependency on animal protein as food. Both of these dependencies have broad political, social, and economic implications, and both are associated with conglomerates of corporate power which wield a great deal of power and influence.

Re the brutalization involved in the industrial size slaughter industry check out this website http://www.themeatrix.com

And a website which deconstructs some of the myths about the "goodness" of milk and dairy products http://www.notmilk.com

>The Green Wreckers who destroyed Australia's cheap reliable electricity are now targeting our cattle industry.

You're under attack from figments of your imagination AGAIN?

I notice you've not provided any evidence or your claim that Extinction Rebellion is even proposing this, let alone that they'd stand any chance of gaining public support.

And on what do you base your claim that "The same heat cannot be trapped twice"? Do you imagine trapping destroys it?

There's obviously something very unhealthy in the water that Daffy Duck and Aidan are drinking.

There's a place for grazing herd animals in nature! And for mine that is in ensuring the fuel load is kept under complete control. Every oxygen-breathing mammal adds CO2 to the atmosphere and grazing mammals do at times burb copious methane as well!

If woody weeds are a problem then intensively cell grazed goat herds will clean up pasture in three seasons.

Domesticated deer will provide a very tasty lean meat and convert more of their graze into protein. Minus the colesterol of beef or mutton. But, need to be kept out of woodlands and forest!

Camels will keep woody acacia under control!

I believe that properly managed cattle farms, that incorporate dung beetles, will be intensively gazed and finished in purpose-built feedlots. And those feedlots almost exclusively reliant on the ex-crush of oil-bearing native wisteria! And if that is the management paradigm. Outperform any other production example hands down!

If you would have a kitchen garden. Then coral your animals overnight in the area that is so designated!

If surface water is critical then dams need to be lined and covered and crops like sugerdrip, e.g. Need to be sown through moisture-retaining, biodegradable plasic. Ditto salt, frost and drought-resistant native wisteria!

Grow enough of the latter and you'll never need ever buy diesel again. Given the oil collected via a simple crush and toilet tissue filter operation, can go directly into your diesel tanks!

That said, protein is protein regardless of the source!
Alan B.

Yes Alan, the fires have got a lot worse since they chucked grazing cattle out of national parks.

“One mans meat, is another mans poison”

Dan

It is interesting to note that the consumption of meat stimulates the sympathetic side of the bi-polar nervous system which is associated with the "fight and flight" response to existence altogether.

Simultaneously it upsets and even negates the homeostatic function of the parasympathetic side of the nervous system which is also related to the psychic and feeling dimensions of our existence-being.

The consumption of sugar and junk "foods" have the same effect. Together with Meat consumption, especially in excessive amounts as per the standard American diet it creates the out-of-balance dreadfully sane every person of which Donald Trump was/is a prime in-your-face example.

This "fight and flight" disposition also creates and keeps in place the aggressive materialism which now patterns and controls every aspect of human culture, including most/all of what is promoted as "religion" - especially in the USA. And as a corollary it also prevents the evolutionary development of the human species both at the individual and collective level.

Oh, ok DD.

“evolutionary development of the human species“.

What do you suppose is the end development stage of the evolutionary process you refer to here.?
To what end product of the human species is its completed development projected to arrive at. Reincarnation as a bird maybe?

Meat, at over $30 a kg, has rendered itself unaffordable and forced many people from the lower end of the SE end, being mostly the Donald Trump supporters, away from the contaminating influences you express.

Could it actually be though, meat eaters are more likely to be Democrats, and that could actually give a sensible theory why those people decided an escapee from the dementia ward of a nursing home, would make for a reliable President of the US of A.

Dan.

Given that vegetarians have lower life expectancies than meat-eaters, the health benefits are dubious.

Secondly, as the methane in cow farts degrades into CO2 with a 1/2 life of about 6 years, in reality, meat is 100% sustainably grown with 0% impact on climate change.

The term 'The Green Wreckers' instantly devalues whatever argument is to follow. Supporters of the switch to renewable energy are not necessarily supporters of veganism. And if readers are already groaning at the simplistic conflation of two separate groups, it's double groan by the time we get to 'their red-green agenda'!
Many who urge action on climate change also eat meat. A distinction however needs to be drawn between the large agribusiness industrialised production of grain-fed meat and the smaller-scale organic grass-fed raising of livestock. They are both very different. The former has adverse effects on both our health and that of the planet, whereas the latter is good for us and our environment. Mention also needs to be made of processed meat, most of which contains synthetic nitrates and other chemicals, which are damaging to our health.
So, while I agree with the general thrust of the article, it falls down through being needlessly divisive and confrontational and also through failing to acknowledge that not all meats are equal.

Have you ever walked down the meat isle of a supermarket Bronwyn, by your post it is doubtful. Compare the one square meter of shelf dedicated to grain fed beef, to the 25 square meter of range land raised beef, & it makes a fool of your assertions.

The vast majority of our meat is raised on range land, basically worthless for anything but grazing, with almost no input of anything. There is still some parasite protection, but with beef we have bread with the introduction of Brahman blood, a number of breeds that get no management, even tick protection.

Time to get out to the bush & actually learn something about these things, before bursting into print with utter garbage.

Hasbeen

The majority of supermarket meat is grain-finished. Grass-fed meat is in the minority.

And just what else have I written which could possibly justify your arrogant claim of 'utter garbage'?

How about you engage in respectful rebuttal instead of stooping to juvenile insults?

I remember your form when I used to contribute to this site ten years ago. Nothing has changed. You're still as rude and belligerent as you were back then. Most people learn how to argue with fairness and decency as they get older, but you're obviously a lost cause!

And BTW, I grew up on a farm and live in the bush, so again, your patronising advice to 'get out to the bush' is completely off the mark.

I call it garbage, because you are talking garbage Bronwyn.

There are thousands of cattle turned off around here, & only one small feed lot catering to a maximum of 160 bullocks at a time, max 520 a year. Most of wide bay for example the only feed lots are opotunity lots, feeding grain only when drought forces them to feed stock, so make an asset of a problem.

Hasbeen

It appears we're at cross purposes over the term 'grain-fed'.

When I used the term in my first post on this thread, I was referring to animals (and probably mainly beef cattle) being fed grain at any point in their rearing. I was not inferring they had been fed grain all their lives. Yes, some are (eg Wagyu), but the majority are grass-fed for most of their lives and finished off intensively with grain feed in feedlots. This is what I was meaning when I said 'grain-fed'.

Grass-fed cattle are not fed grains at any point in their rearing. When I refer to 'grass-fed', I mean certified grass-fed, which means no grain at all. This is the best choice of meat and it's definitely in the minority. There's only ever a small amount of it available on any supermarket shelves.

According to the Australian Lot Feeders Association, approximately 80% of beef sold in major domestic supermarkets is sourced from the cattle feedlot sector.

I am not speaking 'garbage'. I do concede however that perhaps there would have been less misunderstanding on your part had I used the term 'grain-finished' instead of 'grain-fed'. That's as much as I'm conceding to you, Mr Hasbeen!

And BTW, even if I had been wrong, it's lazy and offensive of you to merely dismiss my views as 'garbage'. Presenting clear rebuttal leads to much better understanding on all sides. You should try it a bit more often!

Bronwyn the percentage of grain finished cattle in Oz is miniscule.

Quite a few growers around here grow feed for the largest feed lot, the volume of which is small compared to the numbers going from paddock to abattoir. What they feed, unlike the US where they feed a lot of grain, is chop chop. This is the complete grain plant, such as corn, which is harvested before any grain has fully developed, the entire plant being chopped small & fed straight into the truck. The cattle are eating it with in the hour. It is done this way as there is much less wastage than if the stock is allowed into the crop.

There is no way the Oz consumer is going to buy much grain finished beef, at $50+ a Kg it is too expensive for our market. There is a very small market for 100 day grain finished Angus beef, but it is very small.

I hear what you're saying and respect your local area knowledge.

You are, however, still muddling the terms 'grain-fed' and 'grain- finished'. They are different. I'm talking about grain-finished, not grain-fed.

I absolutely won't accept your claim that the percentage of grain-finished cattle in Australia is miniscule. As demonstrated by the quotes below, it clearly is not. It's more like 75-80%, which, as I said, is the majority of meat on supermarket shelves.

“Around 75 per cent of the meat found in Australia’s big supermarkets today will be grass-fed beef that has been finished on grain.”
https://www.farmhousedirect.com.au/blog/general/grass-fed-or-grain-fed-beef

“We’ve always seen ourselves as a finishing system. Our cattle spend most of their lives on grass and we finish the product off on a highly nutritious grain ration.” (Australian Lot Feeders’ Association president)
https://www.mla.com.au/news-and-events/industry-news/grain-fed-finished-standard-introduced

"According to the Australian Lot Feeders Association, approximately 80% of beef sold in major domestic supermarkets is sourced from the cattle feedlot sector."
https://sustainabletable.org.au/all-things-ethical-eating/bee

We might have to agree to disagree on this!

Bronwyn,

A diet with some meat in it is healthier than a vegetarian diet and much healthier than a vegan diet.

Secondly, the net result of a cow's life has zero impact on climate change.

Shadowminister

Agree on your first point, though not all meat is equally healthy. Grain-fed (or grain-finished) is less healthy than grass-fed. Big agribusiness industrialised meat production with all its synthetic chemical inputs is far less healthy than organically-raised. And most processed meat is unhealthy.

Also, agree with the general thrust of your second point, though not totally sure about your 'zero impact' claim. Good regenerative farming practice does capture carbon, whereas large-scale scorched-earth farming releases it and in big quantities. The big agribusiness model has other negative environmental effects, in particular on biodiversity and the health of our topsoil.

However, that said, it's good to find some agreement!

Bronwyn,

Having some knowledge of the Aust meat industry, I believe that you won't find synthetic chemicals being used for cattle for Aus consumption, and being fed grain is hardly inorganic.

The reason grain feedlots are used in Aus is that as the animals get bigger their energy requirements grow, and the sparse grass is low in calories and they are constrained in their growth. The high calorie "finishing" enables them to burn carbohydrates instead of muscle and grow a bit more before slaughter.

New Zealand has much more rain and thus the grass is more energy-rich and grain is not required.

Less red meat = Less protein & less testosterone = WEAKER Soldiers.

Loony leftists want to make it easier for "foreign powers" to invade & colonise Australia.

Or make it more difficult for us to defend our nation.